NIH vs. NSF: Primary Differences and Proposal Development ... · This proposal explores the use of...
-
Upload
truongphuc -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of NIH vs. NSF: Primary Differences and Proposal Development ... · This proposal explores the use of...
NIH vs. NSF: Primary Differences and Proposal Development StrategiesMICHELLE M. SCHOENECKER, M.A.
ANN SHIRAS, B.S. , C.R.A.
Overview• Compare NIH and NSF from a biomedical/bioengineering perspective
- Agency mission and organization- Approach to biomedical/bioengineering research- Proposal development, submission, and review
• Provide NSF proposal development strategies
• Highlight differences in electronic proposal submission systems
Who Funds What?NIH Mission:Seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability.
NSF Mission:Promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense.
Where does bioengineering/biomedicine fit in these agencies?
How NIH Funds BiomedicineGenerally funds health‐related exploration and applications of:◦ Devices and instruments◦ Determining the effectiveness of an imaging instrument on brain tissue
◦ Computation ◦ Using bioinformatics to map the genes of complex diseases (e.g., Alzheimer’s)
◦ Trials on animals or human subjects◦ Targeted drug release◦ Instrument techniques◦ Psychological/neurological experiments
How NSF Funds BiomedicineFunds research on the basic science of:◦ Devices and instruments◦ Applying specific imaging theories/techniques to improve performance of MRIs
◦ Computation◦ Developing computational modeling to design better prosthetics◦ Developing algorithms for natural language processing
◦ Trials on animals or human subjects◦ Targeted drug release◦ Instrument techniques◦ Psychological/neurological research
In Other Words . . . • NSF supports fundamental biomedical research that adds to a body of knowledge
• NIH supports the health‐related exploration and application of fundamental biomedical research
• BOTH expect research that:◦ Is highly innovative, cutting‐edge◦ Is potentially transformative◦ Contributes to the body of knowledge◦ Can “move the needle”
OrganizationalNATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
Comprises 27 separate Institutes/Centers
Each Institute/Center has its own research agenda, priorities, and budget
FY 2016 NIH budget: $31.3 billion
FY 2015 Proposal success rate: 19%
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Comprises seven Directorates and about 30 disciplinary Divisions
Each Directorate has its own research agenda, priorities, and budget
FY 2016 NSF budget: $7.4 billion
FY 2015 Proposal success rate: 25%
Program MechanismsNATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
Parent Announcements (PAR)
Standard Research Grants: R01
Exploratory: R21
Small Grants: R03
Large Project/Centers: P01
Training Awards: K01
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Unsolicited Proposals ◦ Standard programs with submission windows
Solicited Proposals◦ Specific programs with specific due dates
EAGER and RAPID
Early Faculty CAREER program
Proposal Review ProcessNATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
First‐Level Review ◦ By a Scientific Review Group (SRG)
Second‐Level Review◦ By Institute/Center National Advisory Councils or Boards.
Proposals must be recommended for approval by BOTH the SRG and Advisory Council
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Program Officer identifies experts and forms a review panel
Review panel makes recommendations for funding
Program Officer makes final recommendation
Proposal Ratings/ScoresNATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
Overall Impact Score: 1‐9◦ 1=exceptional; 9=poor
Considers the following and gives a separate score for each:◦ Significance◦ Investigator◦ Innovation◦ Approach◦ Environment
Bottom‐half of scored applications are not discussed
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Ranks proposals by these categories:◦ Excellent (outstanding quality)◦ Very Good (high quality)◦ Good (quality, worthy of support)◦ Fair (lacking in critical aspects)◦ Poor (has serious deficiencies)
Merit Review Criteria for ALL proposals: ◦ Intellectual Merit◦ Broader Impact
NomenclatureNATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
Specific Aims
Research Strategy
Principal Investigator/Principal Director (PI/PD)
Co‐Investigator
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Objectives
Project Description
Principal Investigator (PI)
Co‐Principal Investigator (Co‐PI)
NSF doesn’t like to see NIH nomenclature in proposals!
Requests for ProposalsNATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
Clearly provides deadlines and other critical information
Content requirements for Research Strategy is usually clear and specific
Easy to read
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Clearly provides deadlines and other critical information
Content requirements for proposal narrative is often vague
Small font size makes it hard (and tiring) to read
Detailed RFPs usually provided for solicited proposals
Proposal FormatNATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
Margins◦ At least a half‐inch on all sides◦ No information in headers/footers, no page numbers
Minimum 11pt font◦ Arial◦ Helvetica◦ Palatino Linotype◦ Georgia
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Margins◦ One inch on all sides, page numbers
Minimum 10pt font◦ Arial*◦ Courier New◦ Palatino Linotype
Minimum 11pt font◦ Times New Roman◦ Computer Modern
Line spacing ◦ No more than six lines per vertical inch*
BudgetsNATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
Modular Budget ◦ For projects $250,000 or less in direct costs
Detailed Budget◦ For projects $250,001 or more in direct costs
Budget limits usually EXCLUDE indirect costs (F&A) unless specified otherwise
No limit on the number of person months
Cost‐sharing usually allowed
Salary cap: $185,100 per year
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Same budget format for all NSF programs unless specified otherwise
Budget limits usually include F&A costs
Allows Senior Personnel salary for up to two months (summer or academic)
Cost‐sharing rarely allowed (program‐specific)
No salary cap
FormatNIH RESEARCH STRATEGY
Page limits based on project type◦ R03, R21 = 6 pages◦ R01 = 12 pages
Organization/framework provided through required sections in narrative:◦ Significance◦ Investigator◦ Innovation◦ Approach◦ Environment
NSF PROJECT NARRATIVE
Page limit is 15 pages for all program types unless otherwise specified
Organization/framework rarely provided; content requirements explained in RFP
Required sections in narrative:◦ Intellectual Merit Statement◦ Broader Impact of the Proposed Work◦ Results of Prior NSF Support
Student InvolvementNIH RESEARCH STRATEGY
NIH does not expect discussion of student involvement in proposed project
NSF PROJECT NARRATIVE
NSF expects students underrepresented in STEM fields to be involved in project:◦ African American◦ Hispanic◦ Native American ◦ Eskimo◦ Pacific Islander◦ Women
How will you do this?
Write to Your Audience• Review panel may or may not include M.D.s or others with a clinical background◦ Ask the program officer how the proposal will be reviewed (panel, ad hoc, or both)◦ NSF allows you to recommend reviewers for your proposal – take advantage of this!
• Focus on the basic science angle◦ Don’t wander too far into the medical/clinical focus
• Think like an NSF reviewer◦ Review your narrative from that perspective◦ Do you understand the terminology?◦ How would you would rate your proposal?
Limit Medical/Clinical JargonINSTEAD OF THIS
Myocardial infarction
Cardiomyocytes
Sequela
Oxidative phosphorylation
USE THIS
Heart attack
Heart muscle cells
After effect; complication
(i.e., the metabolic pathway in which cells use enzymes to oxidize nutrients . . .)
Place the Research Problem in Context• Introduce the current situation from a broad perspective◦ The use of stents in angioplasty has saved countless deaths from heart attacks, but many more lives could be saved with stents that deliver therapeutic doses of medicine directly into the artery.
• What is the problem?◦ Current stents are made from inflexible metal composites that prevent drugs from being released easily into the blood stream.
• Why is this a problem?◦ Previous works have shown that the metal composites react with various cardiac drugs and may release too much or too little of a drug into the bloodstream. This places patients at serious risk of overdose or underdose and thus at increased risk of death.
• What is your idea to address this problem? What do you propose to do?◦ This proposal explores the use of X metal, a new lightweight compound, for cardiac stents. X metal does not interfere with drug delivery, and shows great promise for long‐term use in arteries. Thus, thousands of lives could be saved by the development of a new type of stent.
Refrain from Using NIH Format & Style• NSF reviewers bristle at obvious NIH proposals
• Do not use the phrase “Specific Aims” anywhere – use “Objectives”
• Do not organize your Project Narrative with these headings:◦ Significance◦ Investigator◦ Innovation◦ Approach◦ Environment
• Arial 11pt font is not recommended – Times New Roman 11pt is best
Learn the NSF Merit Review Criteria• Study good examples of Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact Statements
• Practice developing these statements
• Think of ways to engage with students underrepresented in STEM in your project ◦ Don’t wait until you’re writing the application◦ Make connections now with UWM student groups, resources, partners◦ Make connections now with community partners, Milwaukee Public Schools district
Contact Proposal Development Services• Help you understand NSF perspective
• Provide proposal templates for both NSF and NIH proposals
• Review drafts from an agency/reviewer perspective
• Format and edit drafts, help smooth out rough spots
• Help craft strong Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact statements
• Interpret reviewer comments
Contact Information:
Michelle Schoenecker: [email protected] or 229‐2747
Kari Whittenberger Keith: [email protected] or 229‐4062
Proposal SubmissionNATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
Proposals submitted via Grants.gov◦ Adobe package (To be retired 12/31/2017)
◦ PI downloads and completes package, forwards to OSP for submission
◦ Workspace (Required beginning 1/1/2018)◦ PI uploads individual documents and completes forms online for
submission by OSP
NIH ASSIST: Required for multi‐project proposals◦ PI uploads individual documents and completes forms for submission by OSP
Administered via eRA Commons
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Proposals submitted via NSF FastLane◦ Online portal◦ PI uploads individual documents and completes forms online for submission by OSP
Administered via FastLane
Account Creation by OSP Pre‐Award StaffNATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
https://public.era.nih.gov/commons
National Institutes of Health eRA Commons Registration Form◦ If you have an existing Commons Account with another institution, OSP staff must affiliate that account with UWM
◦ After OSP staff create the account, you will be mailed a temporary password by eRA Commons
◦ You must complete the Personal Profile Information in Commons; employment information is required
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov
National Science Foundation FastLane Registration Form◦ If you have an existing FastLane account with another institution, you must update your PI Information to UWM ◦ NSF Organization ID: 0038968000
◦ OSP staff will assign a temporary password. At first login you will change your password
◦ You must update your PI Information in FastLane
Proposal PreparationNATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
Sample SF424 forms are available on the OSP website for completing the Grants.gov package:
http://uwm.edu/officeofresearch/forms‐and‐downloads/
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Institutional and PI information are automatically completed once a new proposal is created in FastLane